What's new

Face Veil removal request in Western Countries

Status
Not open for further replies.
It did not even originate in Arabia, it was worn by Jews and Christians in Levant where the Muslims began to adopt it, shortly after.


Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD), a prolific early Christian author, making a reference to early Arabian women, urges married Christian women to cover their faces (like Arab women).

"Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen" (17:4)

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-09.htm#P671_166987



Most probably, the pre-Islamic Arab concept/tradition of wearing Niqab, like many other Arab tribal traditions/customs, remained unchanged and was later mistaken as "Islamic ruling" rather than "Arab Custom" by some Muslim scholars and jurists. Interestingly, we have a few weak Ahadith (and some Fatwas by prominent Muslim Scholars) telling us that this one-eye open Niqab (the one Arab women had been using for centuries prior to the birth of Muhammad PBUH) was Muhammad's orders.


There is no Qur'anic verse or Sahih Hadith telling the Muslim women to use Niqab/cover their faces. However, we do have a few Sahih Hadith forbidding Niqab (i.e. a pre-Islamic Arabian tradition) while performing Islamic rituals (Salah/Haj/Umra etc.)
 
Last edited:
My wife does not wear the veil or the hijab - though she prays 5 times a day. I on the other hand make it to Jummah prayers and that's about it most of the year :(

I'm personally not a fan of the veil/niqab etc etc...but, point 4 can't and shouldn't be the reason muslim women stop wearing a face veil. The fear/threat of being abused and discriminated against can't be the reason for someone to give up what they consider to be a central part of their faith.

We hear in the west after a terrorist attack - 'we mustn't give in to fear or intimidation...because that would mean x/y/z has won'

Surely, this works both ways? Those muslim women who feel they need to wear a face veil shouldn't give up wearing it because doing so would mean, they too have given into fear or intimidation.

*I have no issues with how independent nations enact laws or rules that govern those who choose to reside in those nations - be those laws concentrate on issues of security or cohesiveness (assimilation). So, ban/prohibit the wearing of a veil in public if it is deemed a security risk for the public at large...but, not because some poor muslim girl is going to get it ripped off or spat on by a bunch of savage thugs.


As I highlighted before, RAND Corp's report on muslims should be read in line with such 'advisories' and 'bans'. That is one of the policy document.

After 7/7 London attacks, the fear of anyone with asian features was so high on London Tubes ... first hand experience. Clean shaved then yet searched a few times. The looks the white commuters used to give :rolleyes1: .. ended up driving in to City instead.

Fear mongering sells and opens the ways for new laws to restrict religious freedom. It's all happening.

Debating Islam and the merit of what is allowed or not is pointless here and distracts from what the intention is.
 
Also bashing the western countries saying that "If they are going to talk about freedom to choose and then ban Burqa or niqaab, its hypocrisy". NO! its not hypocrisy at all, you know why? Because one is a matter of personal feelings and other is security. You don't see a woman or anyone hiding bombs in their bikinis, yet they do in Burqas. Bikinis don't hide your identity, burqas and face veil do. And whenever a woman wears one and goes out in public, its her choice. Burqa? not so much. Women are killed over not covering faces or wearing burqas. Women are killed over wanting to wear whatever they want.
What we need is a burqa ban or even willingly drop the burqa to stand with those being oppressed with it.
Welcome to the forums. I must say it is nice to see such strong opinionated, reasoned and passionate people as you and dadi ji aka @Divergent1 :P

-Coming to your point that touches on the argument that I've been making. First off, what you are saying is drastically different than the argument of @Divergent1. If you see the opening post, one of the corner stone arguments made by her is that, her proposal is for "[Personal]safety reasons (for the women wearing the burqa)". This is the basis for the argument regarding the skimpy clothing, because just like recent surge of hate crimes might have targeted Muslim women wearing the hijab, historically we do see certain serial killers and serial rapists targeting women that wear skimpy clothing. e.g. Jack the ripper, Yorkshire ripper and Green river killer etc. So, if your argument to "advice" women that dressing as such in the current climate might put you at risk (one of the main arguments made by the OP), then the same applies to skimpy clothing as well.

-Secondly, when you say "You don't see a woman or anyone hiding bombs in their bikinis, yet they do in Burqas " and use it as your reasoning to propagate your view of a "burqa ban or willingly dropping burqas" .. Here is something that might be a bit painful to read, that I didn't bring up earlier in the thread, but based on your response ... it has to be said for the argument that you made. Do closely observe the following;
  • LTTE (tamil tigers) women were documented using "bra bombs" where the explosives would be hidden inside their bras, so that they could get past security. In fact the assassination of Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was carried out in 1991 by a tamil tiger (Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, also known as Dhanu) who hid the explosives in her bra.
  • There was an attempt by AQAB (a branch of Al Qaeda) where a terrorist (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden inside his underwear.
  • Another terrorist (Abdullah al-Asiri) from the same organization tried to kill a saudi official, where he hid the explosives inside his rectum.
So if the burqa should be banned or willingly put down for "security reasons" ... should muslim women also have their bras, undies and rectums checked ? or should undies and bras be banned? Ofcourse, that line of logic is only reserved for things that YOU DONT LIKE i.e. Burqa in this case, while it can easily be applied on other articles of clothing as well.

-Like I quoted before; According to Peter Neumann, a professor of security studies at King's College: "I don't know of a single case in which a burqa ban stopped a terrorist attack or hindered someone's descent into terrorism."

edp6o.gif
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forums. I must say it is nice to see such strong opinionated, reasoned and passionate people as you and dadi ji aka @Divergent1 :P

-Coming to your point that touches on the argument that I've been making. First off, what you are saying is drastically different than the argument of @Divergent1. If you see the opening post, one of the corner stone arguments made by her is that, her proposal is for "[Personal]safety reasons (for the women wearing the burqa)". This is the basis for the argument regarding the skimpy clothing, because just like recent surge of hate crimes might have targeted Muslim women wearing the hijab, historically we do see certain serial killers and serial rapists targeting women that wear skimpy clothing. e.g. Jack the ripper, Yorkshire ripper and Green river killer etc. So, if your argument to "advice" women that dressing as such in the current climate might put you at risk (one of the main arguments made by the OP), then the same applies to skimpy clothing as well.

-Secondly, when you say "You don't see a woman or anyone hiding bombs in their bikinis, yet they do in Burqas " and use it as your reasoning to propagate your view of a "burqa ban or willingly dropping burqas" .. Here is something that might be a bit painful to read, that I didn't bring up earlier in the thread, but based on your response ... it has to be said for the argument that you made. Do closely observe the following;
  • LTTE (tamil tigers) women were documented using "bra bombs" where the explosives would be hidden inside their bras, so that they could get past security. In fact the assassination of Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was carried out in 1991 was carried out by a tamil tiger (Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, also known as Dhanu) who hid the explosives in her bra.
  • There was an attempt by AQAB (a branch of Al Qaeda) where a terrorist (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden inside his underwear.
  • Another terrorist (Abdullah al-Asiri) from the same organization tried to kill a saudi official, where he hid the explosives inside his rectum.
So if the burqa should be banned or willingly put down for "security reasons" ... should muslim women also have their bras, undies and rectums checked ? or should undies and bras be banned? Ofcourse, that line of logic is only reserved for things that YOU DONT LIKE i.e. Burqa in this case, while it can easily be applied on other articles of clothing as well .

-Like I quoted before; According to Peter Neumann, a professor of security studies at King's College: "I don't know of a single case in which a burqa ban stopped a terrorist attack or hindered someone's descent into terrorism."

How are you comparing Face veil to under garments?? The question in motion here isn't if females should strip themselves visible. Please avoid bringing inappropriate content which doesn't relate - surely not 'kid' enough for that now are we?

The face veil removal by all means isn't racist and certainly not anti-Muslim.

To further tie this argument baklavas/hoods/helmet anything to do with face cover is outlawed.

The current suggestion of advising or removal of 'face veils' isn't wrong based on security purposes and if we're really going to get that nitty gritty about security and who escapes it then there's so much at fault which goes off tangent from the current point. Keep it to the point and relevant.

Peter Neumann's argument is irrelevant because I haven't discussed nor put at question Burqas, so a comparative argument can't be made on the same scale if it was then it also puts at question coats, loose wear etc.

The question here is face covering removal irrespective of what it is, isn't part of the Western Culture. Yet the West has allowed (somewhat) free movement of Muslim practice. How many Muslim women do you see attending their local Masjid's for any of their daily prayers in Pakistan? How many head sisters are there? Look internal and around.

Roki Aprisdianto (29), a convicted Indonesian terrorist held at the Jakarta Metropolitan Police detention centre, has escaped disguised as a woman in niqab, according to the police.

Some years ago Mustafa Jumaa’ a Somali who killed a British policeman fled Britain disguised as a Muslim woman wearing the Niqab. No one would challenge him at the airport. The use of the niqab, which leaves only a narrow slit for the eyes, exposed the lax security measure at British airports.

In the city of Philadelphia, USA, between December 2011 and April 2012, there had been at least five bank robberies in which the suspects wore Muslim clothing. Security reasons aside common sense demands that people see each other faces and interact with each other at schools, banks, hospitals, court of law, airports, and at police stations.
 
Welcome to the forums. I must say it is nice to see such strong opinionated, reasoned and passionate people as you and dadi ji aka @Divergent1 :P

-Coming to your point that touches on the argument that I've been making. First off, what you are saying is drastically different than the argument of @Divergent1. If you see the opening post, one of the corner stone arguments made by her is that, her proposal is for "[Personal]safety reasons (for the women wearing the burqa)". This is the basis for the argument regarding the skimpy clothing, because just like recent surge of hate crimes might have targeted Muslim women wearing the hijab, historically we do see certain serial killers and serial rapists targeting women that wear skimpy clothing. e.g. Jack the ripper, Yorkshire ripper and Green river killer etc. So, if your argument to "advice" women that dressing as such in the current climate might put you at risk (one of the main arguments made by the OP), then the same applies to skimpy clothing as well.

-Secondly, when you say "You don't see a woman or anyone hiding bombs in their bikinis, yet they do in Burqas " and use it as your reasoning to propagate your view of a "burqa ban or willingly dropping burqas" .. Here is something that might be a bit painful to read, that I didn't bring up earlier in the thread, but based on your response ... it has to be said for the argument that you made. Do closely observe the following;
  • LTTE (tamil tigers) women were documented using "bra bombs" where the explosives would be hidden inside their bras, so that they could get past security. In fact the assassination of Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was carried out in 1991 by a tamil tiger (Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, also known as Dhanu) who hid the explosives in her bra.
  • There was an attempt by AQAB (a branch of Al Qaeda) where a terrorist (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden inside his underwear.
  • Another terrorist (Abdullah al-Asiri) from the same organization tried to kill a saudi official, where he hid the explosives inside his rectum.
So if the burqa should be banned or willingly put down for "security reasons" ... should muslim women also have their bras, undies and rectums checked ? or should undies and bras be banned? Ofcourse, that line of logic is only reserved for things that YOU DONT LIKE i.e. Burqa in this case, while it can easily be applied on other articles of clothing as well.

-Like I quoted before; According to Peter Neumann, a professor of security studies at King's College: "I don't know of a single case in which a burqa ban stopped a terrorist attack or hindered someone's descent into terrorism."

edp6o.gif

Bigots will always gonna bigot
 
How are you comparing Face veil to under garments?? The question in motion here isn't if females should strip themselves visible. Please avoid bringing inappropriate content which doesn't relate - surely not 'kid' enough for that now are we?

The face veil removal by all means isn't racist and certainly not anti-Muslim.

To further tie this argument baklavas/hoods/helmet anything to do with face cover is outlawed.

The current suggestion of advising or removal of 'face veils' isn't wrong based on security purposes and if we're really going to get that nitty gritty about security and who escapes it then there's so much at fault which goes off tangent from the current point. Keep it to the point and relevant.

Peter Neumann's argument is irrelevant because I haven't discussed nor put at question Burqas, so a comparative argument can't be made on the same scale if it was then it also puts at question coats, loose wear etc.

The question here is face covering removal irrespective of what it is, isn't part of the Western Culture. Yet the West has allowed (somewhat) free movement of Muslim practice. How many Muslim women do you see attending their local Masjid's for any of their daily prayers in Pakistan? How many head sisters are there? Look internal and around.

Roki Aprisdianto (29), a convicted Indonesian terrorist held at the Jakarta Metropolitan Police detention centre, has escaped disguised as a woman in niqab, according to the police.

Some years ago Mustafa Jumaa’ a Somali who killed a British policeman fled Britain disguised as a Muslim woman wearing the Niqab. No one would challenge him at the airport. The use of the niqab, which leaves only a narrow slit for the eyes, exposed the lax security measure at British airports.

In the city of Philadelphia, USA, between December 2011 and April 2012, there had been at least five bank robberies in which the suspects wore Muslim clothing. Security reasons aside common sense demands that people see each other faces and interact with each other at schools, banks, hospitals, court of law, airports, and at police stations.
-Now that your comfortable replying in detail, I hope you'll be kind enough to respond to my colorful aka rang brangi post from before.

-Secondly, there is a reason why I didn't bring the whole undergarments point before, it was because your arguments regarding security were surrounding identification etc. Our new member was flat out arguing that people might have explosives under the burqa to push forth your narrative (A post on which you quoted and personally thanked him) .

-So for the interest of fairness, ofcourse I had to bring up other articles of clothing that have been used for terrorism, because if your arguing for a ban or willingly dropping an article of clothing which YOU don't agree with, the same can be applied to other articles of clothing as well. i.e Bras, underwear etc. which have been documented in being used for activities of terrorism. The question now arises;

Why is it that your ONLY 'liberal' and 'open minded' when you want to discuss the banning/ "advising not to wear" the niqab by citing incidents of terrorism, but when other articles of clothing are brought up to the debate table by bringing up incidents of terrorism which were conducted using those articles of clothing --- suddenly you put your morality hat on and try to censor the point by calling it "inappropriate" ...
 
Last edited:
The people that differ in opinion aren't bigot its an informed view. Not uninformed.

You are a bigot for choosing for others what they can freely choose of their own. Plenty of women wear the face veil out of their own will. No need of your ilk to dictate.
 
You are a bigot for choosing for others what they can freely choose of their own. Plenty of women wear the face veil out of their own will. No need of your ilk to dictate.

I am not 'choosing' for them. You've clearly not read anything I've said therefore your opinion is invalid.
-Now that your comfortable replying in detail, I hope you'll be kind enough to respond to my colorful aka rang brangi post from before.

-Secondly, there is a reason why I didn't bring the whole undergarments point before, it was because your arguments regarding security were surrounding identification etc. Our new member was flat out arguing that people might have explosives under the burqa to push forth your narrative (A post on which you quoted and personally thanked him) .

-So for the interest of fairness, ofcourse I had to bring up other articles of clothing that have been used for terrorism, because if your arguing for a ban or willingly dropping an article of clothing which YOU don't agree with, the same can be applied to other articles of clothing as well. i.e Bras, underwear etc. which have been documented in being used for activities of terrorism. The question now arises;

Why is it that your ONLY 'liberal' and 'open minded' when you want to discuss the banning/ "advising not to wear" the niqab by citing incidents of terrorism, but when other articles of clothing are brought up quoting incidents of terrorism which were conducted using those articles of clothing suddenly you put your morality hat on and try to censor the point by calling it "inappropriate" ...

The point is relevant to face exposure. YOUR argument is valid IF other clothing or elements are still in place then a FAIR comparative can be made, undergarment has nothing to do with it. The debate is around face exposure. Keep it to that.

I wouldn't agree with full burqa take off, I don't even feel compliant with removal of veil from the face unless the will of the individual wearing it though I do feel morally it would be correct and isn't anti-faith especially in the current climate.
 
Can muslims accept that certain behaviors are not accepted in other nations?

Its a simple question... yes or no please.

Yes we can, they should however have the freedom to practice their Faith, abide to the law of the land and it isn't 'oppressive' towards them.
 
Can muslims accept that certain behaviors are not accepted in other nations?

Its a simple question... yes or no please.

Muslims will have to accept or leave.

But the issue here is not of what muslims can or can't accept. It is about Western Liberal Secular societies moving away from their core principles and justifying such changes under the pretext of security etc.
 
In the west you show your face. "Faith" is no excuse for insulting others. Can Nahuab people from Mexico go in your country and demand to do human sacrifice because their ancestors religion demanded so? I guess not.

When you are in Europe you show your face. If not you are there to provocate and insult. You make a statement. A hostile statement. You show that you want provocate, that you want that people there actually feel bad and disturbed. I know ediucation in middle east is not very good but i believe even there people know that other culture have other values and customs. The question is, if you can show that you are able for the smallest form of respect for others and act in their country as they expect from you.

Are you able to do so?

You have no right to dictate others about their personal freedom that does not directly fringe on your own rights. So, quit being a bigot.
 
In the west you show your face. "Faith" is no excuse for insulting others. Can Nahuab people from Mexico go in your country and demand to do human sacrifice because their ancestors religion demanded so? I guess not.

When you are in Europe you show your face. If not you are there to provocate and insult. You make a statement. A hostile statement. You show that you want provocate, that you want that people there actually feel bad and disturbed. I know ediucation in middle east is not very good but i believe even there people know that other culture have other values and customs. The question is, if you can show that you are able for the smallest form of respect for others and act in their country as they expect from you.

Are you able to do so?

Ofcourse. Exposing face shouldn't be a problem and the laws of the land should be respected.
 
The point is relevant to face exposure. YOUR argument is valid IF other clothing or elements are still in place then a FAIR comparative can be made, undergarment has nothing to do with it. The debate is around face exposure. Keep it to that.

I wouldn't agree with full burqa take off, I don't even feel compliant with removal of veil from the face unless the will of the individual wearing it though I do feel morally it would be correct and isn't anti-faith especially in the current climate.

-Well, forgive me for saying .. I didn't see the anger, the call for inappropriateness, the post for irrelevance, instead I saw a post regarding "thanks for your input & interesting points" when Mr @Manama was talking about the security issues in terms of "women hiding bombs inside their burqas" which btw has nothing to do with the reasoning you provided regarding face & identification, but if I have the audacity to call out that argument citing incidents of terrorism which use undergarments suddenly your all offended. Again, I'm sorry to ask "why the selective outrage"?

-As far as the whole face veil discussion goes, I asked you to please adress this point of mine. An answer would be appreciated.

There is a hostile environment against wearing the attire in the "open minded" "free" west (if we're to believe scientific polls and scholars that I've cited before). Heck, the very existence of your thread proves that point for me, where one of your prime pointers was "[Niqab]will endanger them due to excessive suspiciousness and uninvited discrimination",even though there is no legal hindrance for you in wearing the niqab. So if nothing else sincerely answer this one question for the entire thread;

Suppose if what you suggest (the 'willingful' abolishing of niqab by muslim women for xyz concerns) comes to pass, where muslim women decide what you suggested is completely fine and should be acted upon. Things settle down in 3-4 years and a young muslim lady wants to cover up her face and she has no legal hindrance in doing so. But will she be able to cover up her face considering;

  • Her own sisterhood willingly gave up that attire.
  • Now the bar for what the " socially acceptable level of covering up" has changed, thanks to the muslim women who handed out a smashing argument to the west i.e. "Other muslim women also cover up, why don't you cover up like them if you want to?"
Once, you give away your liberty, do you really think you'll be able to enjoy your previous rights even if there is no legal objection?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom